1984 (6) TMI 250 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of ad hoc exemption order under the Finance Act, 1978.
2. Validity of auxiliary duty levy under the Finance Act, 1979.
3. Interpretation of Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1978 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
4. Relevance of Notification No. 61-Customs, dated 1-3-1979.
5. Locus standi of the appellant (IOC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of ad hoc exemption order under the Finance Act, 1978:
The appellants (IOC) argued that the consignment of Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) was part of the 3203 tonnes covered by the ad hoc exemption Order No. 302 dated 16-12-1978, which exempted the goods from auxiliary duty in excess of 5% ad valorem. They contended that the date of import was immaterial as long as the goods were covered by the exemption order. The respondent countered that the exemption order was specific to the Finance Act, 1978 and did not extend to the Finance Act, 1979. The Tribunal concluded that the ad hoc exemption order was rendered ineffective by Notification No. 61-Customs dated 1-3-1979, which exempted all goods from auxiliary duty under the Finance Act, 1978.

2. Validity of auxiliary duty levy under the Finance Act, 1979:
The appellants claimed that the auxiliary duty applicable should be 5% as per the Finance Act, 1978, since the Bill of Entry was filed on 28-3-1979. However, the Tribunal noted that Clause 31 of the Finance Bill, 1979, which imposed auxiliary duties, took immediate effect from 1-3-1979 under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. The Tribunal found that the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act, 1979 was validly in force when the Bill of Entry was filed, and no exemption from this duty was produced.

3. Interpretation of Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1978 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act:
The appellants argued that Section 35(2) of the Finance Act, 1978 saved the ad hoc exemption order beyond 31-3-1979, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that Section 35(1) did not cease to have effect until 31-3-1979, and thus, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was not applicable on 28-3-1979. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of Clause 31 of the Finance Bill, 1979, were in force on the date of the Bill of Entry.

4. Relevance of Notification No. 61-Customs, dated 1-3-1979:
The Tribunal highlighted that Notification No. 61-Customs exempted all goods from auxiliary duty under the Finance Act, 1978, effective from 1-3-1979. This rendered the ad hoc exemption order insignificant. The Tribunal further noted that the auxiliary duty under Clause 31 of the Finance Bill, 1979, was applicable and no exemption from this new levy was shown.

5. Locus standi of the appellant (IOC):
The respondent questioned IOC's locus standi, arguing that the ad hoc exemption order referred to CPC. The Tribunal rejected this contention, affirming that the Bill of Entry was filed by CPC on behalf of IOC, and IOC's locus standi was not challenged before the lower authorities. Therefore, IOC had the standing to appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming that the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act, 1979 was applicable, and the ad hoc exemption order under the Finance Act, 1978 was nullified by Notification No. 61-Customs. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or the continuation of the exemption order beyond 31-3-1979.